[general] lang scope? (was Re: [collections][lang] Predicate etc impls, was Re: commons-collections: New code contribution.)

[Rodney Waldhoff <rw...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 scolebourne@btopenworld.com wrote:

> The plan is to make [collections] depend on [lang] and deprecate the
> Predicate etc. interfaces in [collections].

At the risk of becoming increasingly unpopular with the lang folks, for
reasons similiar to those I enumerated in [1] (and others), I'm
uncomfortable with moving Predicate et al to lang.  I'm having a lot of
trouble seeing lang as meeting the "Each package must have a clearly
defined purpose, scope, and API -- Do one thing well, and keep your
contracts." criterion.

Don't get me wrong, I think all of this is great stuff, but why does it
all have to be in lang?  If it doesn't meet the common reuse principle, it
should be in a different component.  The current (i.e., released) contents
of o.a.c.lang, o.a.c.lang.builder, o.a.c.lang.enum and
o.a.c.lang.exception seem reasonably coherent, but I don't think the
either the functor or the reflection packages are a clean fit (with
respect to the CRP, R/REP, etc.), either with each other or the other
classes in lang.

[1] <http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgNo=19869>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>